Also, $300-400 in healthcare premiums is obviously not almost half of someones monthly income of $1,200. At worst it is a third. I was just rattling of things quickly and not articulating myself very well. The person I was thinking of was older and poor and it's a fact that these people have been paying half their income sometimes.

Monday, May 29, 2017

First off, this meme must be seen for what it very likely is, which is an attempt to get conservatives who are often Christian to not vote for Trump. It was likely written by atheists who permeate the Democrat ranks, so it is dishonest, which isn't very Christian. That said, I will tackle this meme on the premise that it is honest. I myself am a spiritual person with great interest in Gnosticism, Tibetan Buddhism, Jewish mysticism, and esoteric Christianity.

Regarding Jesus favoring the poor...

Jesus doesn’t seem to advocate anywhere either a pursuit of poverty or wealth to bring meaning to life, yet he cautions about the difficulty and challenges of wealth. Again and again Jesus points to the answer to our yearnings, which is much different from the daily barrage of advertisement and thoughts that go through our minds.

God ministers Justice equally to all- He treats all, rich and poor, fairly without partiality- with equity. God does not have a special love for the Poor- He loves everyone; He loves His Covenant People. God does not favor the Poor (as a class) over the Rich or over the Saints- we must not romanticize or idolize the Poor- some are saved, some unsaved, some are righteous, some evil.

The Law of God spells out Rights and Wrongs. Murder and Theft are murder and theft, etc. God is on the side of anyone who suffers Injustice- those who’s Rights are denied. It is more Scriptural if we say God is on the side of those who suffer injustice, rather than on the side of the poor as such. Not all poor suffer injustice. Many rich people do.

It is not valid to equate the Poor with the Oppressed (this is usually done using contemporary definitions of both words) More than 20 causes of Poverty are mentioned in Scripture. Injustice is a cause of Poverty, but not always. According to the Bible, poverty may also be caused by Disease, Death, War, Lifestyle Choices (Laziness, Addictions, Waste) and Ignorance.

Donald Trump is a very charitable and kind man. Don't believe me? Take a look...

Also, even though Christians believe that stealing is wrong, the government takes more money from Trump by force than his Democratic counterparts. This of course completely debunks the notion in the meme that Trump "doesn't pay taxes."

The new health care bill seeks to keep noble parts of Obamacare like covering preexisting conditions, but sets out to foot the bill in ways other than using government force, such as high risk insurance pools. More Info:

Yes, of course Christians can support Trump’s immigration and refugee policies

The recent news about Donald Trump’s Executive Order seems to have created scores of new Biblical scholars. The interesting thing about these Instant Theologians (Instalogians, for short) is that many of them are secularists who regularly deride the Bible as a collection of childish fairy tales. But every once in a while they’ll take a break from sneering at it to suddenly appeal to its moral authority. Of course, the problem is that these brilliant academics have never actually read the “fairy tales,” so when they try to use it as a cudgel to beat conservative conservatives over the head, they more often end up smacking themselves. I’ve been called a “Bible thumper” many times, but I’ve never thumped anyone with a Bible. I prefer to stand back and let them thump themselves.

I’ve been observing this spectacle these last several days, as Leftists have chided Christians for “disobeying the Bible” and “betraying their faith” by refusing to join in the collective freak out over Trump’s policies on immigration and refugees. I’ve heard over and over again that my faith requires me to advocate for the immediate admission of illegal aliens and un-vetted refugees from terror hot spots. The Bible clearly commands it, they say. You can’t be a “real Christian” unless you’re an advocate for open borders and unfettered immigration. National security and sovereignty are heresies!...

...Let’s look at what the Bible actually says. Can a Christian be faithful to Scripture while also supporting Trump’s approach to Middle Eastern refugees and illegal immigrants? Are we compelled by our religion to denounce Trump for putting a hold on the Syrian refugee program in order to strengthen the vetting process? Are we betraying the very faith we profess when we argue in favor of temporarily prohibiting travel from terrorist breeding grounds while the government reassesses how it handles such travelers?The answers are yes, no, and yes. You can, it turns out, be an advocate for strong borders and national security while also being a sincere Christian. These two things are not in conflict. On the contrary, they’re quite in harmony. Scripture does of course say quite a bit about helping the poor and the downtrodden, but one must pay attention to how these instructions are phrased. A few examples:

Matthew 25:35-40: For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.

Matthew 5:42: Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Deuteronomy 15:11: For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

Luke 12:33-34: Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

James 1:27: Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.Luke 10:25-37:You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.

You’ll notice a few similarities in these passages. For one thing, they tell us what we personally should go out and do for others. Christ did not say, “I was naked so you petitioned your congressman to come up with a state funded program that might eventually lead to someone other than yourself supplying me with some clothing.” No, He said, “I was naked so you clothed me.” You. You, personally. Not your neighbor. Not the State. You. Scripture tells you to provide for the less fortunate of your own accord and with your own time and resources. If you aren’t willing to do that, you shouldn’t feel that you’ve covered that base because at least you complained on Twitter about Republicans not instituting policies that might make up for your personal lack of charity.

Another theme: All of these verses deal with people who are physically nearby. “Your neighbor,” “In your land,” are the key phrases here. That isn’t to say that we should ignore other people’s neighbors in other people’s lands, but it does appear that Christ wanted us to particularly focus on those who are actually in our immediate vicinity. That ought to be our first priority, according to the Bible. Indeed, if everyone tended to that first priority, we would never need to have any priority other than the first.

As we can see, there is no way for an honest person to read these passages and arrive at the conclusion that they rule out things like border walls and temporary travel bans. These are measures the government takes precisely to protect those in our land, and certainly that ought to be the first (and second and third and fourth) priority of our government. It’s for this purpose — the purpose of protecting the people of its own land — that government exists, and it’s by God’s will that it exists and passes laws to that end.

Romans 13: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Yes, Scripture does clearly exhort us not to “oppress” the “sojourners” from other lands (Exodus 22), but is it a form of “oppression” when our duly elected governing authorities pass immigration laws and travel restrictions designed to protect its own people? I don’t see how a sane adult could interpret it that way. And if you do interpret it that way, then you’ve effectively argued that immigration laws are inherently immoral across the board. But if immigration laws are inherently immoral, that would make the government itself inherently immoral because one of the primary and most essential functions of government is to protect the nation’s borders and maintain its sovereignty. How could a nation have a government if it has no borders? Clearly, Romans tell us that governments are necessary, and if it tells us that governments are necessary then it tells us that borders a necessary. You can’t have one without the other.

So, if you feel that Scripture compels you to do something about the refugee crisis, I would suggest that you take your own money and send it to help those in need. If you feel that Scripture compels the government to admit all refugees without screening or filtering them, I would suggest that you go back and read the text again. And if you feel that Scripture compels conservatives to adopt a left wing approach to this issue — even as you openly deny the validity of Scripture and mock those who read it — I would suggest you find a better argument entirely.

The Bible has plenty of examples of God’s people taking measures to protect their communities. There’s no reason to fear every single Muslim we meet, but in looking at the bigger picture, there are perfectly valid reasons to fear the violence and political and cultural change a growing Muslim population can bring...

We’ve been marinating in a theology that focuses excessively on grace and inner peace to the exclusion of other parts of the Bible that tell us evil is always on the march.

Both the Old and New Testaments make frequent use of words such as battle, soldier, and warfare in both the literal sense and in a metaphorical spiritual sense. But you will be hard-pressed to hear those words in sermons today. Many Christians have been lulled into a childish view of the world and think that deep down everyone is not too different from them. But history and the contemporary world should show us that fundamentalist Islam is radically different from the beliefs of Christians and other Americans. If we don’t fully wake up to this reality, we will pay a heavier price for our delusions than we already have.

FLASHBACK Jul 26, 2014 Christians Being Slaughtered - and What is Being Done?

FLASHBACK The Truth About The Crusades

Regarding Jesus turning the other cheek...

Jesus is well known for His continued emphasis on love, forgiveness, and "turning the other cheek." It is therefore surprising to find Jesus advising the disciples to buy a sword in Luke 22:36: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Did Jesus in this verse advocate the use of a sword for self-defense purposes?...

"TURN THE OTHER CHEEK" ALWAYS? It is true that Jesus said to turn the other cheek in Matthew 5:38-42. However, many scholars do not believe pacifism (or nonresistance) is the essential point of His teaching in this passage. These scholars do not believe Jesus was teaching to "turn the other cheek" in virtually all circumstances. Even Christ did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (see John 18:22-23).

The backdrop to this teaching is that the Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the face, much in the same way that we would interpret someone spitting in our face. Bible scholar R. C. Sproul comments: "What's interesting in the expression is that Jesus specifically mentions the right side of the face [Matthew 5:39]....If I hit you on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I did it with the back of my right hand....To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way challenges to duels in the days of King Arthur were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek of your opponent."

The principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-42 would thus seem to be that Christians should not retaliate when insulted or slandered (see also Romans 12:17-21). Such insults do not threaten a Christian's personal safety. The question of rendering insult for insult, however, is a far cry from defending oneself against a mugger or a rapist.

Self-defense may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ Himself said, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:14). When protecting one's family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.

Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that "to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally."

Danny Gold for Liberty Writers reports, James Comey lied to the American people while under oath and now Barack Obama’s spying and unmasking scheme is center stage again. Today a declassified FBI document was handed over to CIRCA that proves FBI agents have NOT been following the laws put in place to protect American privacy.

Sources: Comey acted on Russian intelligence he knew was fake:

Washington (CNN)Then-FBI Director James Comey knew that a critical piece of information relating to the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email was fake -- created by Russian intelligence -- but he feared that if it became public it would undermine the probe and the Justice Department itself, according to multiple officials with knowledge of the process...

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that this Russian intelligence was unreliable. US officials now tell CNN that Comey and FBI officials actually knew early on that this intelligence was indeed false.

In fact, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe went to Capitol Hill Thursday to push back on the notion that the FBI was duped, according to a source familiar with a meeting McCabe had with members of the Senate intelligence committee.

The Russian intelligence at issue purported to show that then-Attorney General Lynch had been compromised in the Clinton investigation. The intelligence described emails between then-Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and a political operative suggesting that Lynch would make the FBI investigation of Clinton go away.In classified sessions with members of Congress several months ago, Comey described those emails in the Russian claim and expressed his concern that this Russian information could "drop" and that would undermine the Clinton investigation and the Justice Department in general, according to one government official.

Still, Comey did not let on to lawmakers that there were doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, according to sources familiar with the briefings. It is unclear why Comey was not more forthcoming in a classified setting.

Sources close to Comey tell CNN he felt that it didn't matter if the information was accurate, because his big fear was that if the Russians released the information publicly, there would be no way for law enforcement and intelligence officials to discredit it without burning intelligence sources and methods. There were other factors behind Comey's decision, sources say.

In at least one classified session, Comey cited that intelligence as the primary reason he took the unusual step of publicly announcing the end of the Clinton email probe.

In that briefing, Comey did not even mention the other reason he gave in public testimony for acting independently of the Justice Department -- that Lynch was compromised because Bill Clinton boarded her plane and spoke to her during the investigation, these sources told CNN...

So Comey ended the email investigation because of fake Russian intelligence, that he failed to disclose was fake, and that never went public for the fear it would go public? Why would the Russians need to release such false intelligence? Politics is perception. The perception that then-Attorney General Lynch had been compromised in the Clinton investigation was already there from her meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac, which Comey used as a public excuse. This all makes no logical sense. It could be, within the context of this unverifiable story, that Comey is lying now, which makes him out to be a liar then, when he wasn't actually lying then in his public statements.

Saturday, May 27, 2017

These events occurred 40 seconds prior to the collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade Center. High speed horizontal ejections during the collapse raise question marks. Horizontal ejections prior to the collapse, especially in conjunction with a high temperature melting event, raises red flags.

For the second time in eight years, Hillary Clinton sees the Democratic nomination being pawed by a charming interloper, like a priceless vase grabbed by a panda. She’d prefer to shoot the panda, but that could mean breaking the vase, and onlookers would object. To make matters worse, Bernie Sanders, who leads Clinton in both New Hampshire and Iowa, has produced a new video ad, “America,” a wordless feel-hope montage that is awfully good, good enough that I can’t help feeling both moved by it and resentful that it works on me. Maybe shoot the panda.
Source: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/0...Backup: https://archive.fo/Wdn5PFull Text: https://pastebin.com/raw/q4QpMSYs

Michael Johnson1 hour ago
Panda was a known nickname for Seth Rich. He even has versions of it as his user name. Kimdotcom refers to him as Panda. HE IS THE PANDA. Recent pictures of his family show a stuffed panda with them. Do we need an interview with a real panda who knew him?
Very well done report. Thank you.﻿

Jennifer Hoffman19 hours ago
George Webb just talked about this. This prosecutor works in the same district as the judge who is hearing the class action lawsuit against the DNC. He believes it is a warning and so does the attorney who is representing the defendants in the DNC class action lawsuit and who was just in a hearing on the matter just prior to this prosecutor being murdered -- his death was no accident.﻿

HA Goodman is a journalist for the Huffington Post and is the creator of the publication counterpropa.com which recently soared to the top of the google search engine with the article from contributor and journalist Zach Haller. HA Goodman also has several CNN appearances as well. He offers his insight into the Seth Rich case, and talks about his decision to use his platform to vigorously support Bernie Sanders.

It’s unclear where Whisenant actually died. His body was found washing up on the shore just south of Magnolia Terrace on Hollywood beach early Wednesday by a passerby.http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local...